From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from lists.gentoo.org ([140.105.134.102] helo=robin.gentoo.org) by nuthatch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1ENIFv-000450-QB for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Wed, 05 Oct 2005 23:01:00 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.5/8.13.5) with SMTP id j95MpYDl029369; Wed, 5 Oct 2005 22:51:34 GMT Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [134.68.220.30]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id j95MpX2h022297 for ; Wed, 5 Oct 2005 22:51:33 GMT Received: from cpe-65-26-255-237.wi.res.rr.com ([65.26.255.237] helo=nightcrawler) by smtp.gentoo.org with esmtpa (Exim 4.43) id 1ENIF2-0003IS-2n for gentoo-portage-dev@lists.gentoo.org; Wed, 05 Oct 2005 23:00:04 +0000 Date: Wed, 5 Oct 2005 18:00:12 -0500 From: Brian Harring To: gentoo-portage-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] Questions about CVS locations and GID... Message-ID: <20051005230012.GK10159@nightcrawler> References: <43443257.8090800@egr.msu.edu> <20051005202429.GC10159@nightcrawler> <20051005215703.73327655@snowdrop.home> <20051005211306.GE10159@nightcrawler> <20051005233132.583685f6@snowdrop.home> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-portage-dev@gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-portage-dev@lists.gentoo.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="F55Y67F01HNW3AgB" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20051005233132.583685f6@snowdrop.home> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.8i X-Archives-Salt: ddce7069-0d85-4a47-96ce-bcbcb6546cb3 X-Archives-Hash: 754ebf625a6f562ae92cdaebf48b5618 --F55Y67F01HNW3AgB Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Wed, Oct 05, 2005 at 11:31:32PM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > On Wed, 5 Oct 2005 16:13:06 -0500 Brian Harring > wrote: > | A) would like to hear what you think is required planning wise=20 > | compared to the previous haubi prototype patch. >=20 > There has been no serious discussion on how *ebuilds* will use the > prefix system. Hacking econf and expecting PREFIX to be sufficient is > naive from a tree-perspective. econf isn't the only change required; the point is that whatever is=20 decided, would have to be added to econf thus covering a good chunk of=20 ebuilds in the tree that don't require fancy voodoo. The basic proposal of haubi's glep (ignoring the portage innard=20 modifications) came down to addition of a prefix var, that would be=20 required slipped in for any fs installation paths (--prefix=3D$PREFX=20 fex). Beyond that, there is the shebang issue which can be addresses via a=20 combination of automated scans/fixes, and fixing bugs as it's hit. =20 Hardcoded vars in scripts for the path to a binary are an issue also,=20 although again, scans can be done to at least check for it. Leaves mangling the build process so that the build framework of the=20 package uses the prefix offset files, rather then / . For c/c++=20 source, usual trick from fink afaik involves a mangling of cflags with=20 -I tacked in. Kinda ugly, although I'd expect there is a better=20 route. Packages that pull include/compile settings/args from a utility=20 (thinking python configuration tools, and pkgconfig) shouldn't be too=20 horrid to change, since it's a matter of modifying it in one place=20 (theoretically :). ~harring --F55Y67F01HNW3AgB Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFDRFr8vdBxRoA3VU0RAp58AJ91SowVvr9Y1vBYzn27TMgicNRVUwCeIeFS 4LXS4f4HLUo3syhtn3FOGx0= =h0lj -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --F55Y67F01HNW3AgB-- -- gentoo-portage-dev@gentoo.org mailing list